BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility whether intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can be used to reduce doses to normal lung than three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3 DCRT) in treating distal esophageal malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patient cases with cancer of the distal esophagus were selected for a retrospective treatment-planning study. IMRT plans using four, seven, and nine beams (4B, 7B, and 9B) were developed for each patient and compared with the 3 DCRT plan used clinically. IMRT and 3 DCRT plans were evaluated with respect to PTV coverage and dose-volumes to irradiated normal structures, with statistical comparison made between the two types of plans using the Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test. RESULTS: IMRT plans (4B, 7B, 9B) reduced total lung volume treated above 10 Gy (V(10)), 20 Gy (V(20)), mean lung dose (MLD), biological effective volume (V(eff)), and lung integral dose (P<0.05). The median absolute improvement with IMRT over 3DCRT was approximately 10% for V(10), 5% for V(20), and 2.5 Gy for MLD. IMRT improved the PTV heterogeneity (P<0.05), yet conformity was better with 7B-9B IMRT plans. No clinically meaningful differences were observed with respect to the irradiated volumes of spinal cord, heart, liver, or total body integral doses. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-volume of exposed normal lung can be reduced with IMRT, though clinical investigations are warranted to assess IMRT treatment outcome of esophagus cancers.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility whether intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can be used to reduce doses to normal lung than three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3 DCRT) in treating distal esophageal malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patient cases with cancer of the distal esophagus were selected for a retrospective treatment-planning study. IMRT plans using four, seven, and nine beams (4B, 7B, and 9B) were developed for each patient and compared with the 3 DCRT plan used clinically. IMRT and 3 DCRT plans were evaluated with respect to PTV coverage and dose-volumes to irradiated normal structures, with statistical comparison made between the two types of plans using the Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test. RESULTS: IMRT plans (4B, 7B, 9B) reduced total lung volume treated above 10 Gy (V(10)), 20 Gy (V(20)), mean lung dose (MLD), biological effective volume (V(eff)), and lung integral dose (P<0.05). The median absolute improvement with IMRT over 3DCRT was approximately 10% for V(10), 5% for V(20), and 2.5 Gy for MLD. IMRT improved the PTV heterogeneity (P<0.05), yet conformity was better with 7B-9B IMRT plans. No clinically meaningful differences were observed with respect to the irradiated volumes of spinal cord, heart, liver, or total body integral doses. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-volume of exposed normal lung can be reduced with IMRT, though clinical investigations are warranted to assess IMRT treatment outcome of esophagus cancers.
Authors: Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera; Igor Sirak; Miroslav Hodek; Petr Paluska; Jiri Dolezal; Marcela Kopacova Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Steven H Lin; Ning Zhang; Joy Godby; Jingya Wang; Gary D Marsh; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; Linus Ho; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Reza J Mehran; Thomas A Buchholz; Linda S Elting; Sharon H Giordano Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven H Lin; Brian P Hobbs; Vivek Verma; Rebecca S Tidwell; Grace L Smith; Xiudong Lei; Erin M Corsini; Isabel Mok; Xiong Wei; Luyang Yao; Xin Wang; Ritsuko U Komaki; Joe Y Chang; Stephen G Chun; Melenda D Jeter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Mariela Blum-Murphy; Ara A Vaporciyan; Reza J Mehran; Albert C Koong; Saumil J Gandhi; Wayne L Hofstetter; Theodore S Hong; Thomas F Delaney; Zhongxing Liao; Radhe Mohan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yi-Jen Chen; Kemp H Kernstine; Stephen Shibata; Dean Lim; David D Smith; Martin Tang; An Liu; Richard D Pezner; Jeffrey Y C Wong Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Stefan Münch; Sylvia Aichmeier; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Marciana-Nona Duma; Markus Oechsner; Marcus Feith; Stephanie E Combs; Daniel Habermehl Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jérémie Calais; Bernard Dubray; Lamyaa Nkhali; Sebastien Thureau; Charles Lemarignier; Romain Modzelewski; Isabelle Gardin; Frederic Di Fiore; Pierre Michel; Pierre Vera Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Abraham J Wu; Walter R Bosch; Daniel T Chang; Theodore S Hong; Salma K Jabbour; Lawrence R Kleinberg; Harvey J Mamon; Charles R Thomas; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Liru He; Andrew Chapple; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; Peter F Thall; Steven H Lin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 6.280